The last injunction blocking President Trumps transgender military ban from taking effect was lifted by a federal judge Thursday, moving the administration closer to being able to enforce the policy.

In a six-page order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge George Russell III wrote that he was lifting his injunction because the court is bound by the Supreme Courts decision to stay the preliminary injunctions in their entirety."

Though courts have now ruled to lift all four injunctions that had been placed on the policy, advocates for transgender troops say one remains in effect do to a stipulation in that courts ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January to stay two of the injunctions. That followed a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier in January that lifted another of the injunctions.

People are certain,y welcome to their day in court, but one thing in particular irritates me. How in the world do these judges have a right to tie up the countrys chief executive with nationwide injunctions? Im not talking about the Supreme Court. Im talking about the district judges. How do they have authority to impede national policy?

4
posted on 03/07/2019 1:33:31 PM PST
by CitizenUSA
(Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.hu)

It is Liliputians tying down a giant. They want the giant to stay still and mind them. Eventually, he will get p!ssed off enough to rise up and stomp on them. Donald Trump is not the giant. But he’s related to it.

11
posted on 03/07/2019 1:51:09 PM PST
by Eleutheria5
(If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.)

The last injunction blocking President Trumps transgender military ban from taking effect was lifted by a federal judge Thursday, moving the administration closer to being able to enforce the policy.

In a six-page order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Judge George Russell III wrote that he was lifting his injunction because the court is bound by the Supreme Courts decision to stay the preliminary injunctions in their entirety."

Though courts have now ruled to lift all four injunctions that had been placed on the policy, advocates for transgender troops say one remains in effect due to a stipulation in that courts ruling.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the existing policy allowing open service by transgender people will stay in place until further guidance is issued in the near future.

"The department is pleased with the district court's decision to stay the final injunction against the department's proposed transgender policy, Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said in the statement. The 2016 policy will remain in effect until the department issues further guidance, which will be forthcoming in the near future."

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in January to stay two of the injunctions. That followed a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling earlier in January that lifted another of the injunctions.

Transgender troops have been serving openly since June 2016 when the Obama administration lifted the previous ban on their service.

In July 2017, President Trump tweeted he would reverse the open service policy, saying he would not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.

Four lawsuits were filed against the ban, and lower courts in all four had issued injunctions blocking the policy from taking effect while the suits work their way through the court system.

In March 2018, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis released a policy that would allow transgender people to serve if they do so in their biological sex.

Transgender people and their advocates argue the Mattis policy is still effectively a ban akin to the Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy for gay, lesbian and bisexual service members.

The ruling issued Thursday stemmed from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six transgender service members.

The ACLU called Thursdays decision deeply disappointing and vowed to continue fighting the Trump policy.

Each and every claim made by President Trump to justify this ban can be easily debunked by the conclusions drawn from the Department of Defenses own review process, Joshua Block, senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project, said in a statement. Our clients are brave men and women who should be able to continue serving their country ably and honorably without being discriminated against by their own commander in chief.

The injunction ruled on by the D.C. Circuit Court is still in place, though. Advocates say it remains in force for the time being to allow the plaintiffs lawyers time to decide whether to request a rehearing by the appeals courts full bench.

The lawyers in the case have not said yet whether they will request a rehearing. But in statements, the organizations leading the suit expressed confidence they would ultimately prevail in striking down the Trump policy.

The Trump administration keeps pushing to enforce a senseless and harmful ban, Jennifer Levi, GLADs Transgender Rights Project director, said in a statement. There is no question this ban weakens our military by excluding from service transgender people who meet all of the militarys rigorous readiness and medical standards. With the Doe injunction still in place, we will continue fighting this discriminatory ban.

14
posted on 03/07/2019 2:45:35 PM PST
by jazusamo
(Have You Donated to Keep Free Republic Up and Running?)

Amen. The military is no place for a person so disturbed that they go to bed a man and wake up the next morning wanting boobs and their old fella cut off. A psychiatric hospital or clinic is more appropriate. You won’t defeat ruthless armed forces with ranks peppered with such people.

“... one thing in particular irritates me. How in the world do these judges have a right to tie up the countrys chief executive with nationwide injunctions?”

It is a puzzler, because if the Supreme Court decides something, its one thing in our checks and balances scheme. But if dozens if not hundreds of judges around the country can over-rule the President until the case can reach the Supreme Court (who has limited bandwidth to handle them), we have a judicial dictatorship, or at the very least, judicially imposed anarchy. The laws are whatever a judge says they are. And, don’t tell me there is no forum shopping!

20
posted on 03/07/2019 3:17:31 PM PST
by Pearls Before Swine
( "It's always a party when you're eating the seed corn.")

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.